Featured Compatibilism: Is God the Author of Sin?

Wait...wait...I've got a better one. A Presbyterian, a Lutheran, and a Baptist go into a bar....

Apparently something we left off is defining “compatibilism”. Your illustration misses the point that no one here believes men are tied up by God, blind folded, etc. This is what I mentioned earlier when I spoke of being honest. I already told you that we believe men choose freely. And when men sin, they are not influenced by God to sin. So I am not sure why you can't let that go. But perhaps looking at "compatibilism" will help you understand:

Strictly speaking, “compatibilism” is not a religious term. For example, Kant held that not only are “our actions determined by the casual mechanism of nature but also that they are free.” The point is “whether regarding the same effect which is determined by nature, freedom can nevertheless be present or whether freedom is wholly excluded by such an exceptionable rule”. Kant, of course, favored the former and purposed “to unite nature and freedom,” to “remove the apparent contradiction between the mechanism of nature and freedom,” to show that “causality from freedom at least does not contradict nature.” (Kant’s Compatibilism, an essay by Allen Wood).

In other words, we are restricted by nature. Science has demonstrated this time and time again. But within those “bounds” we are also free. This is the philosophical principle, but the principle did not originate in philosophy.

In this thread, it has been called (erroneously) “neo-Calvinism”, I assume as an insult or out of ignorance. Often we hear talk of “Augustinian Compatibilism”. This is not strictly a compatibilism about free will and determinism in general (Augustine rejects any determinism of fate or physical necessity). Augustinian Compatibilism is the view most Christians seem to assume. Augustine held a view that asserted specifically the compatibility of free will and God’s power to determine what men shall will.

According to Augustine’s doctrine, God chooses to give grace to some people rather than others, determining who will be saved. God does not do this without the human will or in violation of its freedom, but precisely by turning human free will towards the good. So, one of the things God can choose is what human free choices will be. Augustine thinks that free will is capable of doing evil, but not good, and is therefore sufficiently deserving of divine justice as eternal punishment is merited by willing evil. In terms of salvation, our free will makes an indispensable contribution to the process of salvation – we must will the good in order to be saved. But this is not possible without God’s grace to will the good, God’s turning us towards the good so that we can freely choose life. In other words, God moves our wills when we can’t, causing us to love and choose and do good things that were impossible without God’s grace. (this explanation is from Philip Cary, Augustine and Philosophy).

So, you see, Compatibilism is not “neo-Calvinism”. It is also not a compromise between libertarian free will and hard determinalism. It is, instead, an attempt to be faithful to both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in salvation as described in Scripture. Men freely choose. Not tied up. Not blind folded. God doesn't cause their sin. They freely make their choices. Even when we are saved we are freely choosing. Please consider these things before you freely choose to reply.

 

No, not a "word play" at all. It is true...and you have no ground to deny it because you affirmed that truth at the start...although you erroneously thought "Compatibilism was "neo-Calvinism".

 

I do not understand exactly what you are addressing in this post. Do Calvinists believe that "only God is the one not liking [the suffering of being hurt]? No, I've never encountered such in their writings or my experience with them. I don't like being hurt and I assume others feel the same. And of course all things come from God. I never said otherwise. But again, with your insistence on definition, our intentions are not "things" to be created by God but rather things that come from the created. Jesus taught that what defiles a man is what proceeds from man (not from God). I suspect He is right.

 

We cannot say that the whole context is Israel because Paul ties this into a redemption that includes Gentiles (verse 30). And God is immutable.

 

Thank you for the clarification. As we go forward I will take your statements to mean not that Calvinists believe such and such, but that your reasoning would lead you to this conclusion or that.

We all have ideas and beliefs about what opposing theologies ultimately and logically would conclude. Most of the time, they do not reach that destination. For example - Logically, if a man through his unassisted, unaltered, uninfluenced, and natural will choose to get on a lifeboat in order to save himself, then the man is said to have saved himself. A man who, by his own power, becomes a successful businessman is known as a "self-made man". And, logically, if free-will theology is correct, man authors his own salvation. But advocates of Free Will Theology do not arrive at that destination, despite the logic I would impose.

Likewise, as we continue, I think that we all know Calvinists do not arrive at the destination your logic would bring them (otherwise they would not be Calvinists). Not only that, but many Calvinists understand and reject that logic (there really is nothing new under the sun). So that tells us that another reasoning is present, one that seems to be elusive to your understanding. And that is what I would like to convey through this thread.

While you may logically conclude through your own reasoning that Calvinism's ultimate end is that God authors evil, Calvinism itself comes to a different logical conclusion. The difference is the "logic". What we are speaking of here is reasoning through Scripture and forming doctrines. It is natural that men separate on this issue because we do not understand things the same, and we do not reason things out the same way.

There are some here who will never understand the opposing view because they cannot or will not understand reasoning that is not their.own. And it is difficult. It took some time for me to understand the "logic" of Reformation Arminianianism and how they are not really concluding that man saved himself. And it took me a long time to understand the reasoning of Calvinism, why it can never conclude God as the author of evil, or that God saves men against their will. So hopefully this thread will help others see why Calvinists conclude what they conclude instead of imposing an opposing reasoning on Calvinism to generate a false end.

 

It is amazing, isn't it, that even the philosophers can't agree.

We believe that men are not God. Our reasoning is not perfect. Therefore our "logic" is not perfect. We have "logical conclusions", but they are as numerous as the stars. Immanuel Kant is probably the most influential philosopher, and his "logic" is amazing. Yet he reduces Christianity to a religion that teaches morals to the uneducated (Kant was a Deist...or, as I think Woods suggested, a Theist). I don't think we can say Kant was not "logical". "Logically", a man who dies stays dead. Logically, a man can't walk on water or through a solid object. God is not confined to our logic.

Or, you can trust God and lean not on your own understanding.

 

You have, BTW, never answered my question -

Scripture teaches us that Joseph's brothers sinned when they sold him into bondage. Scripture also tells us that it was God's intention as well.

You said that Joseph's brothers purposely sold Joseph into slavery. Are you saying God did not intend for Joseph to be sold into slavery?

If not, how do you deal with Joseph's statement to the contrary as you are denying Scripture?

If so, then are you not confirming that God authored sin?

This is not an either-or situation. And that is what I've been saying all along. I think we both affirm Scripture - that the brothers sinned by selling Joseph into slavery, but this was also God's intent. The difference is that you make God out to be the author of sin and I don't. Your logic is flawed, I believe because you are thinking of God's will as if God were man. But I don't know for certain the reason.

 

So you believe God's redemptive plan is in fact a matter of happenstance. God has no plan, but works to exploit the works of men to his benefit. And, it's just a matter of coincidence that men, throughout history, develop wicked plans that God can use for his benefit. Neo-Arminianism or Open Theism?

 

I changed the title. Per BB rules the title is to reflect the OP. You said the purpose was not to argue what Compatabilists believe, how it is defined, but to examine"logical conclusions". The original title was provocative. It did not represent Compatabilism, or the belief of compatabilists, but your opinion of where that doctrine as you understand it would lead.

You have failed to prove God as a reactionary God, dependent on the actions of men and happenstance to manipulate his plan of reconciliation. I think some conversation could still be had, but will close the thread as requested.

 

You got it. Thread closed.